Talk:Bad Lieutenant

More detail about versions

I'd like to see more information detailing the differences between the NC-17 and R versions. I am not personally aware of which scenes were edited, or I'd add the detail myself.

Not that it would really matter, but I was unable to find any such detail anywhere online. Everyone seems to be well aware of the Schooly-D/Led Zeppelin change, but nobody describes the things that were too far over-the-top for the MPAA's R rating.

67.84.207.63 14:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I watched this movie on November 11, 2006, at a university-run theater a block or two away from Portland State University and can't say for sure whether it was the short version or the long version but I can testify to the raunchy nature of the film. For what it's worth, there was full frontal nudity of Harvey Keitel as he over-emoted a "freakout scene" in a drug-induced hallucination, and as for other instances of nudity, there's a fair amount of "on the side" profile-nudity of several of the actresses, for whatever reason. The dialogue is also replete with X-rated language. At the end, the credits to the movie come scrolling down the screen in thick black letters on a white screen, everything silent, like the director was denied funding for theme music for the credits. The last scene to the movie involves a Mafia style 'hit' being coordinated by someone driving a car up along side the protagonist's, and then delivering a couple of choice gunshots through the driver's window into the protagonist's car, such that blood spatters the passenger window, and pedestrians walking along, gathering to see what has happened. My guess is that I saw the raunchier 'long' version to the film.

4 scenes I can recall shortened in the R rated version: 1. Full frontal view of Keitel in the "freakout scene" mentioned above 2. The "masturbation" scene with the 2 girls in the car (a brilliant scene by the way) 3. The raping of the nun with the crucifix. 4. The nude nun on the examining table revealing pubic hair That's all I can remember at the moment.

Signifying Rapper

This article and the Signifying Rapper article contradict each other. This article says the song is played after he drops his kids off; the song's article claims it's while the nun is being raped. Do these two events correspond, or is it just a mistake? Is it played twice? It's confusing for people who read both and one is probably wrong. I can't remember exactly what happens when and I haven't seen the uncut version with the song anyway Yohan euan o4 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Better late then never, I guess... The song is played during several scenes, among them the rape and the drop-off of the kids. I changed both articles so that they say "several scenes" instead of a specific one. Spike 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, tying this point to the one above, it was played over the end credits in the original cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.236.178 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

The chronology is off. The scene where he shoots out the radio, comes after the one where he drops a bag of drugs in front of a colleague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.193.19 (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Lieutenant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005005459/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/52/year/1992.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/52/year/1992.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Penn station?

Isn't it in the film Trump Plaza? --Alex1011 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No. There is an advertisement for a fight taking place at Trump Plaza in the background of the shot of him in the car, but he is in front of Penn Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.73.221 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Beat Cop" in cast listing

Victor Argo's character is incorrectly listed as Beat Cop. It should read Bet Cop. This does sound odd, but he's certainly not a beat cop (you'd expect a younger cop in uniform, not a grizzled detective in suit and tie like this character is). He places bets with the main character several times, but his name is never mentioned, hence Bet Cop. I can screenshot the film's credits to verify. (And I know IMDb has this same error in its listing. I'm trying to change it there too. It got denied, just as my edit here was reverted by JesseRafe.) JayveeEn (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This correction has since been made on IMDb, so I've entered it here as well. See screenshot of the credits for verification. JayveeEn (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternate theatrical poster

In a previous edit, I had opted to swap out the obscene variant of the poster where the titular character's nearly-visible nakedness with an alternate version for the sake of the average Wikipedia reader (some of whom may be young in age). While this was completed, the edit was reverted. I would like to hear what the arguments against such a change are, and even more importantly -- why?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Before the statement is made that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #Wikipedia is not censored (WP is not censored, which I already know), there is also the Wikipedia:Offensive material guidelines which state: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. -- we clearly have an alternative, that is relevant/accurate/informative for the article, and is not obscene like the current included iteration. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

There has been no additional opposition to this discussion, given the identified parameters which very specifically address the poster in question. I will move towards reinstating the option which is not obscene. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is hardly offensive and is nothing more explicit than seeing a man at a swimming pool. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit for now @DisneyMetalhead:. It came to my attention as I got a notice that the poster was about to be deleted. While I don't think either is bad representation of the film, I do not agree that we should remove it as a young child might see it. You'd see the same amount of male nudity in a public pool in most places and I don't think I'd remove similar posters of the era on the same grounds as Striptease, Showgirls, or other films that are showing of nudity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing obscene by that image. It has been used in the article since 2010, with no objections until 16 years later. This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mike Allen 21:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: the comparable examples that you gave, are in no way similar to the current poster. The Bad Lieutenant poster is intentionally provocative, with the lead is not clothed (though shadows thankfully obstruct the primary concern). Your argument that male nudity is seen in public pools is an odd statement, with questionable context. As previously stated, Wikipedia:Offensive material guidelines state: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. -- we clearly have an alternative, that is relevant/accurate/informative for the article. Moreover the alternate poster more accurately represents the movie, when compared to the male lead standing in the buff with shadows covering him below the waist...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see anything there below the waist that you seem to see. I think this would require more than two people to get in on this conversation because I'm going to say looking at this on the monitor I don't see his genitals. As for being representitive, this one is a scene in the film, the other is a more generic promotional shot which makes it look like any crime film. As for intentionally not being provocative, I'm sure if someone squinted hard enough, they'd claim they can see something in the Striptease poster as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia shall not be censored.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no justification to swap out the poster for a more censored version, per WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no applicability of WP:OM here; that guideline applies to common topics, like where it says, "For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject." An instance of that here would be to include a freely-licensed image or video of a sex act in the "Plot" section to purportedly demonstrate the general nature of an act that happens in the film.

Here, this film was rated NC-17, this poster is completely valid, and it is not out of place in line with the film's themes. Filmmaker magazine said in 1992 here, "Cohen is taking pains to distinguish Bad Lieutenant as 'a cerebral NC-17' and certainly the film's poster, one of the year's best, sets the pic apart from the pack. A nude, full-frontal shot of Harvey Keitel wearing a searching, out-of-it, expression, his crotch falling into shadow beneath block letters, the image captures the film's eschewal of cop narrative in favor of an exploration of inner space." This is not at all an instance of including an image purposely to offend. It is representative of the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 01:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

While previous statements argue that the current poster is a representation merely for its provocative material, and that Wikipedia will not be censored -- this alternative poster is not a censorship but rather a variant. I would once again redirect attention once again to: Wikipedia:Offensive material guidelines state: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." We have a suitable alternative, and while I am not "offended" as the previous comment insinuated, I would argue that where there is a suitable alterative available there is justification to swap out the two images.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)